Cuomo's campaign finance missteps pile up
NEW YORK — Andrew Cumo's mayoral campaign made a glaring error as aides rushed to report his fundraisers last month: They mixed up a documentarian who bundled checks for the frontrunner with a nursing home fraudster of the same name.
The error came as Cuomo's team was making good on regulatory requirements that reporters had noted he dodged.
In their haste Kevin Breslin, a nursing home operator who earlier this year pleaded guilty to Medicare and tax fraud, was reported as somebody who collected five contributions totaling $2,270 for Cuomo's campaign. But it was actually a documentarian and the son of famed reporter Jimmy Breslin who had gathered the checks.
'I support Andrew. He's a family friend forever!' the unconvicted Breslin said in an interview. 'I don't know about any nursing homes.'
It was a minor error, but any nursing home reference creates a wince factor for Cuomo, who has been criticized for his requirement that they not turn away Covid-positive patients when he was governor during the outset of the pandemic. The order has dogged him on the campaign trail, even as rivals have failed to dent his polling lead.
The episode is just the latest instance of how the Cuomo campaign — built on the premise of his competence during a time of crisis — has bumbled its way through the city's highly regulated public financing system. Cuomo was denied public matching funds in April after failing to follow the city's instructions on collecting information from donors. His team's end-around manner of communicating with a super PAC elicited a warning from regulators. The campaign failed to report all its bundlers as required by law, only doing so after the problem made headlines and blaming the delay on intermediaries failing to fill out forms.
And when they belatedly shared the information, the wrong Kevin Breslin wasn't the only mistake. Cuomo's campaign reported that Geoff Berman, whom President Donald Trump appointed as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in 2018, had helped Cuomo raise money from another Geoff Berman who served as the former executive director of the New York Democratic Party under Cuomo.
Both Geoff Bermans did donate to Cuomo, and the Republican Berman — now a litigator at Fried Frank — even gave a max-out $2,100. But one Berman did not help the other. Cuomo campaign spokesperson Rich Azzopardi attributed that to a clerical error, and suggested that Berman and Breslin did not look closely enough at an intermediary form they signed.
Breslin admitted as much; Berman did not respond to a request for comment.
Taken together, the missteps underscore Cuomo's unfamiliarity with a decades-old system that provides candidates with public funds for qualifying contributions. The system essentially bankrolls campaigns: Zohran Mamdani, running a distant second to Cuomo, has received his max-out match of nearly $6.7 million already.
The highly regulated system is new for Cuomo, who has only run state-level races with far higher donation limits and comparatively lax campaign finance enforcement. Until now, Cuomo has never sought public matching funds and has typically relied on a batch of wealthy donors to fund prior races. Donation limits at the state level during Cuomo's Albany tenure topped $60,000.
Zellnor Myrie, a four-term state senator running far behind Cuomo in his own bid for mayor, boasted of a much smoother transition from the Albany system to the city's.
'Andrew Cuomo has said that New Yorkers should give him a chance, because he has been a competent leader, yet he has at each juncture of this campaign, failed to do the basic things that are necessary to uphold the law,' Myrie said at a press conference Tuesday, in response to Cuomo's issues with the Campaign Finance Board.
Azzopardi chalked it all up to a few minor errors.
'The gulf between the insiders and the New Yorkers who are actually going to decide this race, an overwhelming number of whom want Andrew Cuomo to be mayor because they know he will fix what's broken and put this city back on the track, has never been wider,' he said in a statement. 'This is a 66 day old campaign that has already raised more than $2.5 million and these are two mundane clerical errors that are already being amended. My understanding is that none of this is especially unusual with this system.'
He declined to comment on whether the campaign expects to receive public matching funds at the board's meeting next week — though he had expressed confidence last week to the New York Post that the campaign would get the payout.
Meanwhile emails released through a Freedom of Information Law request reveal the board warned the Cuomo campaign on March 10 that its online fundraising page wasn't compliant with strict regulations for matching funds, after the campaign had already been collecting cash for 10 days.
The page 'is missing the legally required affirmation statement' delineated in written guidance, the Campaign Finance Board's deputy director of candidate services told Rachael Harding, Cuomo's campaign compliance attorney.
The campaign switched to the city's fundraising system by March 12, but it was too late — they had already collected hundreds of donations that could not get matched unless each donor filled out an additional form.
The campaign also had trouble verifying the addresses of donors who gave online, prompting dozens of emails from the campaign to the board as it tried to troubleshoot, as first reported by the New York Post.
Realizing the errors meant the campaign might not get the $2.5 million in public matching funds, the campaign scrambled, emailing donors asking for help — but it was too late. In a standard review of the campaign's fundraising filing, the board rendered ineligible 997 of the 1823 donors Cuomo's campaign was seeking public matching funds for. The 55 percent error rate was enough to drop the campaign below the threshold to qualify.
Even after that, messages show the Cuomo campaign tried to convince the board to stretch the rules and pay up anyway.
The board declined to grant a request from Cuomo's attorneys for a multi-million dollar payout just days after the denial if they could prove they fixed the issues. The board told the campaign it would need to submit all the documentation in the process of the official review, 'as is the process for every campaign.'
The emails also show the Cuomo campaign beset by smaller issues. Famed fashion designer Kenneth Cole, Cuomo's brother-in-law, accidentally mailed a check meant for the Cuomo campaign directly to the campaign finance board. The board sent back the check, and emailed the campaign a heads up.
The check didn't make it in time to be included in the filing, which only included donations received through March 13. But Cole still helped out. The campaign reported that he bundled $750 in donations from investors Jacob and Eric Ruttenberg.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
CNN's Scott Jennings rips liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan for nationwide injunction hypocrisy: ‘Some of these folks really are hacks'
New York Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. Conservative CNN pundit Scott Jennings ripped liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kegan as a partisan hack for opposing the elimination of nationwide injunctions – despite wanting to end the practice when President Biden was in power. Jennings called out Kagan – one of three dissenters in Friday's historic Supreme Court ruling that prevents district court judges from interfering with a president's agenda – for previously and publicly slamming the widespread abuse of nationwide injunctions during a Democratic presidency. 'I was trying to sort out my feelings on this matter, and I came up with a quote from a very smart lawyer, and I just want to quote it, because I think she was right when she said it,' the political commentator quipped on CNN's 'Saturday Morning Table for Five.' Advertisement 3 Scott Jennings on CNN discussing a Supreme Court decision. mediaite ''It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks.' Justice Elena Kagan in 2022 said that, of course, when we had a democratic president. Now she voted against the decision on Friday. 'Just goes to show you that some of these folks really are hacks.' The lefty justice made the comment at a Northwestern University law school talk three years ago. Advertisement 3 CNN's 'Table for Five' panel discussion. mediaite Does anyone remember Justice Kagan being against nationwide injunctions when we had a DEMOCRAT President? Pepperidge Farms remembers. — Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) June 28, 2025 Kagan told the audience that 'It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.' Advertisement Jennings called the 6-3 ruling a 'great day' for Trump after host Abby Phillips remarked how nationwide injunctions have 'been sort of the bane of existence' for both Democratic and Republican presidents. 3 President Trump at a White House press conference. / MEGA 'I'm glad they went ahead and fixed it because it's not right that one of these individual district court judges can act like a king or a monarch and stop the elected president from acting,' Jennings added. Advertisement President Trump has been slapped with at least 25 national injunctions on everything from spending reforms to education policy and deportation policies in the first five months of his second term in the White House. Kagan's liberal peers, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, also voted along ideological lines to reject the high court decision.


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Elon Musk Calls Donald Trump's Big Beautiful Bill 'Political Suicide'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Elon Musk made several last-ditch arguments on X ahead of Saturday's planned vote in the Senate that will look to advance President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful" spending bill in a key vote. Musk, who had spent months as a close Trump ally during his time working for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), very publicly criticized the bill after departing the federal government and returning to the private sector. Trump and Musk then had a very public fight over, hurling insults and allegations at each other. The tech mogul renewed his criticism on Saturday in a series of posts on X, saying first that the bill "raises the debt ceiling by $5 TRILLION, the biggest increase in history, putting America in the fast lane to debt slavery!" "The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive," Musk said in a separate post. "It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future." He quickly followed it with a post that included polling by The Tarrance Group which showed the majority of all voters and even various groups of declared Republican voters agree with Musk's criticism and would grossly increase the federal budget by trillions of dollars. This is a breaking news story. Updates will follow.

2 hours ago
What's in the latest version of Trump's big bill now before the Senate
WASHINGTON -- At some 940-pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations. Now it's up to Congress to decide whether President Donald Trump's signature's domestic policy package will become law. Trump told Republicans, who hold majority power in the House and Senate, to skip their holiday vacations and deliver the bill by the Fourth of July. Senators were working through the weekend to pass the bill and send it back to the House for a final vote. Democrats are united against it. Here's the latest on what's in the bill. There could be changes as lawmakers negotiate. Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump's first term expire. The legislation contains roughly $3.8 trillion in tax cuts. The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill. It temporarily would add new tax breaks that Trump campaigned on: no taxes on tips, overtime pay or some automotive loans, along with a bigger $6,000 deduction in the Senate draft for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year. It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 under the Senate proposal. Families at lower income levels would not see the full amount. A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. It's a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years. There are scores of business-related tax cuts. The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 increase from the legislation, which would cost the poorest people $1,600 a year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House's version. Middle-income taxpayers would see a tax break of $500 to $1,500, the CBO said. The bill would provide some $350 billion for Trump's border and national security agenda, including $46 billion for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and $45 billion for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to fulfill his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year. The homeland security secretary would have a new $10 billion fund for grants for states that help with federal immigration enforcement and deportation actions. The attorney general would have $3.5 billion for a similar fund, known as Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide, or BIDEN, referring to former Democratic President Joe Biden. To help pay for it all, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections. For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security. To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back some long-running government programs: Medicaid, food stamps, green energy incentives and others. It's essentially unraveling the accomplishments of the past two Democratic presidents, Biden and Barack Obama. Republicans argue they are trying to rightsize the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse. The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program's work requirements. There's also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services. Some 80 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama's Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts. All told, the CBO estimates that under the House-passed bill, at least 10.9 million more people would go without health coverage and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps. The Senate proposes a $25 billion Rural Hospital Transformation Fund to help offset reduced Medicaid dollars. It's a new addition, intended to win over holdout GOP senators and a coalition of House Republicans warning that the proposed Medicaid provider tax cuts would hurt rural hospitals. Both the House and Senate bills propose a dramatic rollback of the Biden-era green energy tax breaks for electric vehicles. They also would phase out or terminate the various production and investment tax credits companies use to stand up wind, solar and other renewable energy projects. In total, cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs would be expected to produce at least $1.5 trillion in savings. A number of extra provisions reflect other GOP priorities. The House and Senate both have a new children's savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury. The Senate provided $40 million to establish Trump's long-sought 'National Garden of American Heroes.' There's a new excise tax on university endowments, restrictions on the development of artificial intelligence and blocks on transgender surgeries. A $200 tax on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was eliminated. One provision bars money to family planning providers, namely Planned Parenthood, while $88 million is earmarked for a pandemic response accountability committee. Billions would go for the Artemis moon mission and for exploration to Mars. The bill would deter states from regulating artificial intelligence by linking certain federal AI infrastructure money to maintaining a freeze. Seventeen Republican governors asked GOP leaders to drop the provision. Also, the interior secretary would be directed to sell certain Bureau of Land Management acreage to provide for housing. The sale of public lands would cover at least 600,000 acres and up to 1.2 million acres, according to a projection from the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation group. Altogether, keeping the existing tax breaks and adding the new ones is expected to cost $3.8 trillion over the decade, the CBO says in its analysis of the House bill. An analysis of the Senate draft is pending. The CBO estimates the House-passed package would add $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over the decade. Or not, depending on how one does the math. Senate Republicans are proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already 'current policy.' Senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach. Under the Senate GOP view, the tax provisions cost $441 billion, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Democrats and others say this is 'magic math' that obscures the true costs of the GOP tax breaks. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget puts the Senate tally at $4.2 trillion over the decade.